Holding

The requirement of a valid municipal licence at the date of application is a lawful, non‑arbitrary condition for allotment of industrial plots under the Nazul Rules.

Summary

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) rejected applications of several industrial units for allotment of alternative industrial plots, citing two grounds: the applicants did not possess a municipal licence under Section 416 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and Rule 6(v) of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 required such a licence. The rejected applicants filed writ petitions, which were allowed by the Delhi High Court; DDA appealed the decision before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the licence requirement was arbitrary, unreasonable or ultra vires, and held that it was a valid policy condition because operating without a licence is a continuing offence and the condition does not depend on the number of plots or the silence of the notice. The Court also affirmed that the Nazul Rules applied to all allotments made after their commencement and that ad‑hoc licences granted retrospectively did not satisfy the DDA’s condition. Consequently, the Court dismissed DDA’s appeals in the cases of Vijay Steel Products, Kimat Baldev Chhiber and Chawla Sons, but allowed DDA’s appeals in the remaining cases, setting aside the High Court orders and dismissing the writ petitions of those respondents. The judgment clarified the legal requirement of a valid municipal licence for industrial plot allotment in Delhi.

Issues considered

The validity of the condition that an applicant must hold a municipal licence under Section 416 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act at the time of application for an industrial plot.
Whether Rule 6(v) of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 mandates the possession of such a licence for allotment of Nazul land.
Whether the DDA’s policy of rejecting applications on this ground is arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of statutory provisions.

Legislation cited

Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944
Delhi Development Act, 1957s. 14
Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981s. Rule 6(v)
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957s. 416, s. 461

Subjects

Town planningIndustrial plot allotmentMunicipal licenceSection 416Rule 6(v)Nazul landDelhi Development AuthorityAdministrative discretionAd‑hoc licensingNon‑conforming area

Judgment

A DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC. ~

v. j

AMBITIOUS ENTERPRISES AND ANR. ETC. ''·
JULY 9, 1997

B (K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.)

Town Planni11g:

c
Delhi Municipal Corporatio11 Act, 1957, Sectio11 416-Delhi Develop-
ment Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul La11d) Rules, 1981, Rule 6(v) ). .. IC--

Allotme11t of altemative i11dustrial plots by DDA in conformi11g
areas-Co11dition that applicants for allotmellts should be possessed of
municipal lice11ces u11der S.416 of the Act and R. 6(v) 011 the date of filing
of the application-Co11ditio11 based on govemment policy of allot-
D ment-Held, valid and 11ot arbitrmy, unreasonable or bmtio11al-Condition :
would be valid even if it was 11ot imposed for short listing the applicants and
the 11umber of plots available was more tha11 the applicant~Such conditio11s
would also be valid even i11 the absence of any 111entio11 about it in the notice •
inviti11g the applicatio11s or eve11 if the presC1ibed application f mm required ....
E i11fonnation about 11umber a11d date of mu11icipal licences, if any held.
Ad hoc Licencing Policy, 1982--0btai11i11g of temporary lice11ces
u11de1~Refttsal to allot plots to some 11011-hazardous units who later obtained
tempormy lice11ces with retrmpective effect on the basis of i11demnity bond
fttmished by them conte11di11g that they would 1101 claim any altemative site,
F damages or compensatio11 i11 lieu of (empormy /ice11ces-Held, justified..

The Respondents writ petitioners before the High Court were ag-
grieved by the order of the DDA rejecting their applications for allotments
of plots for which they had applied and deposited 30% of the premium as
per the public .notices issued by the DDA.
G
~---
The rejection of the request of the allotment of plots was principally
on two grounds : (1) The applicants were not having licences as required
under the DMC Act and (2) Rule 6(v) of the Nazul Rules required the
applicants to be possessed of municipal licences. Both these objections of
H the DDA did not find favour either with the Single Judge or Division Bench
50
D.D.A v. AMBIDOUS ENTERPRISES 51

' in LPA. Hence these appeals. A

Disposing of the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. The condition imposed by the DDA for allotment of
industrial plot to a person who was having a valid licence under the MCD B
Act was neither arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational. A person who is
running a trade without a valid licence under Section 416 of the MCD Act
is committing an offence which is a continuing offence and he cannot be
put on the same pedestal with a person who is law abiding and is having
a valid licence. Otherwise it will be putting a premium on illegality. That
-• condition of holding of valid MCD licence imposed by the DDA would be C
legal even if the number of plots available is more than the applicants. It
is' not material if the notice inviting application was silent on this aspect
of the matter and the application form which was prescribed used the
words "if any". [57-G-H; 58·A·B]
D
2. The parties who were not having municipal licences on the date of
their respective applications have been barred from getting an industrial
plot altogether. They are, however, left to fend for themselves either by
buying an industrial plot in public auction or by private purchase. As per
• the policy of the DDA, it does not allot the industrial plots to them on pre
determined rates as they fell outside the policy made by it. In terms of this E
policy it is also not material as to from what time in fact an industrial unit
had been working • may be much prior to the date of application for
allotment of industrial plot. The argument that the Nazul Rules came into
force only on September 26, 1981 but the public advertisement for allot-
ment of plots had been issued much earlier and, therefore, the Nazul Rules F
would not be applicable does not appear to be sound. No plots had been
allotted prior to the coming into force of the Nazul Rules and once these
Rules, which are statutory, came into force no allotment could have been
made outside and in contravention of those Rules. The relevant part of
Rule 6(v) will apply to those industrialists who are required to shift their G
industries from non-conforming areas to conforming areas under the
Master Plan. It is eorrect that some of the respondents were granted
municipal licences under Ad hoc Licencing Policy, 1982 from a retrospec-
tive date and it would appear, licence fee has also been charged from a
back date. DOA has not accepted these ad hoc licences since as per
condition of its policy there should be a valid licence on the date of the H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A application. Those parties who wanted ad hoc licences had to give an
indemnity bond. In view of the averments made in the indemnity bond, the .··-.
non-allotment of plots to the ad hoc licence-holders was justified. [60-B-FJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4321 of
1997.
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.7.94 of the Delhi High Court
in L.P.A. No. 38/94.

Arun Jaitley and Mr. V.B. Saharya for Mis. Saharya & Co. for the
C Appellant.
'.
R.K. Jain, R.P. Bhatt, AB. Rohtagi, S.P. Sharma, Harish Malhotra,
Pradeep Kr. Bakshi, Arnbrish Kumar, R.S. Dewan and Pramod Dayal for
. the Respondents.

D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D.P. WADHWA, J. Special leave granted.

These 11 appeals are directed against the judgment dated July 29,
1994 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court passed in appeal
E against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated May 27, 1994. The
judgment of the learned Single Judge decided as many as 25 writ petitions,
while he allowed 14 of them 11 were dismissed. Delhi Development
Authority (for short 'the ODA') had filed Letters Patent Appeals against
the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions. 11 of
these are before us.
F
The writ petitioners were aggrieved by the order of the DOA reject-
ing their applications for allotment of plots for wbch they had applied in
terms of public notice dated February 8, 1976 and they had also deposited
the earnest money and had further paid 30% of premium as per the
G subsequent notice issued in September 1976.

The rejection of the request of the appellants for allotment of plots
was principally on two grounds : (1) the applicants were not having
licences under Section 416 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and
(2) Rule 6(v) of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed
H Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (for short 'Nazul Rules') also required the
D.DA v. AMBITIOUS ENTERPRISES [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 53

applicants to be possessed of municipal licence. Both these objections of A
the DDA did not find favour either with the learned Single Judge or the
Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeals. So these appeals by DDA.

Notice dated February 8, 1976 informed all concerned of the decision
of the DDA to the industries functioning in non-conforming areas or the B
areas which were under acquisition for various public purposes to obtain
land in the conforming industrial areas which had been developed by the
DDA in different localities in Delhi in accordance with the provisions of
the Master Plan. The applicants were required to make applications on
prescribed forms. The notice also informed the applicants to deposit
earnest money on the basis of the size of the plot applied by them for C
allotment. Price of the land was to be deposited in four quarterly
instalments. The last date for receipt of the application was March 31, 1976.
A second notice was issued by DDA in September 1976 requiring the
applicants to pay 30% of the total premium of the land by October 31,
1976. This notice also specified the rates to be charged for different types D
of developed plots. It is not disputed that the appellants did apply, deposit
earnest money as well as the premium as required by the two notices. Their
applications however came to be rejected in the year 1988 and the earnest
money and premium were also refunded. In the letter rejecting the
applications no ground was mentioned as to why the applications were E
rejected. But it is a common ground that these were rejected as the
applicants did not possess the municipa: licence and any allotment on that
account would contravene the statutory provisions of the Nazul Rules.
Section 416 of the DMC Act is as under:

F
"416. Factory, etc., not to be established without permission of
the Commissioner. (1) No person shall, without the previous per-
mission in writing of the Commissioner, establish in any premises,
or materially alter, enlarge or extend, any factory, workshop or
trade premises in which it is intended to employ steam, electricity,
water or other mechanical power. G

(2) The Commissioner may refuse to give such permission, if
he is of the opinion that establishment, alteration, enlargement or
extension of such factory, workshop or trade premises, in the
proposed position would be objectionable by reason of the density H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A of the population in the neighbourhood thereof, or would be a
nuisance to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood."

Contravention of this provision entails penal consequences and its
punishment is provided under Section 461 which is as under :

B "461. Punishment for certain offences. Whoever -

(a) contravenes any provision of any of the sections, sub-sec-
tions, clauses, provisos or other provisions of this Act mentioned
in the first column of the Table in the Twelfth Sched'.lle; or

c (b) fails to company with any order or direction lawfully given •
to him or any requisition lawfully made upon him under any of the
said sections, sub-sections, clauses, provisos or other provisions,

shall be punishable -
D (i) with fine which may extend to the amount, or with imprison-
ment for a term which may extend to the period, specified in that
behalf in the third column of the said Table or with both; and

(ii) in the case of a continuing contravention or failure, with an
E additional fine which may extend to the amount specified in the
fourth column of that Table for every day during which such
contravention of failure continues after conviction for the first such
contravention or failure."

If we refer to Twelfth Schedule as mentioned in the section, the punish-
F ment prescribed is an under :
Section, Subject Fine or Daily
sub-secti imprison- fine which
on, clause ment which maybe
or proviso maybe imposed
G imposed
Section Establishment of 5000 500
416 factory, etc.,
without permission

H Rule 6(v) of the Nazul Rules is as under :
D.D.A. v. AMBmous ENlERPRISES [D.P. WADHWA, J.) 55

,..,, "6(v) to industrialists or owners and occupiers of ware houses A
who are required to shift their industries and ware houses from
non-conforming areas to conforming area under the Master Plan,
or whose land is acquired or is proposed to be acquired under the
Act;

Provided· that the size of such industrial plot shall be deter- B
mined with reference to the requirement of the industry or
warehouses set up or to be set up in accordance with the plants
and such industrialists and owners of warehouses have the capacity
to establish and run such industries or warehouses and on the
conditions that the land allotted at pre-determined rates shall not, c
in any case, exceed the size of the land which has been, if any,
acquired from such industrialists or owners and occupiers of
warehouses and which form part of Nazul land;

, Provided further that in making such allotment, the Authority
shall be advised by the Land Allotment, Advisory Committee :" D

Pursuant to the notice inviting application about 15,000 applications
were received for allotment of plots. As the number of applications was
. large the ODA, it would appear, decided that an applicant should deposit
30% of the premium amount of the land sought to be allotted as a E
condition precedent for DOA to consider the application. Out of 15,000
applicants only 416 deposited the requisite amount of premium. Thus
sizeable number of applicants were weeded out. Even after depositing the
amount of premium some of the applicants withdrew the same and
ultimately only 299 applicants were left in the field. In November 1980 the
applicants were asked to furnish a legible photostat copy of the MCD
F
licence pertaining to their respective units and location. Out of these 184
applicants were allotted plots as they were found to be in possession of
valid municipal licence issued by the MCD as on the date of the application
and their industries were found to be in non-conforming areas. Cases of
remaining 115 were referred to a committee for ascertaining their eligibility G
'' for allotment of plots. The committee after examining the matter found that
60 out of 115 applicants were eligible for allotment of alternative plots.
Cases of 55 applicants were rejected on the ground that they were not
possessing municipal licence as on the date of making their applications
for allotment of plots or their industries were not situated in H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A non-conforming areas. These 11 appellants before us are from those 55
applicants whose applications were rejected.

Para 8 of the application for allotment of plot which was made on
the form prescribed required information as to the following :

B
"Number and date of municipal licence held, if any, and date
upto which it is valid."

The Division Bench noted that the words "if any" were significant and
that what the information required was the details of the municipal licence
C if the applicant was holding one. It held that holding of a municipal licence
could not be a mandatory condition for allotment of plot. February 1976
notice also did not require that the applicants who wanted shifting of their
industries from non-conforming area should be holder of valid municipal
licences. The Division Bench also observed that it was not disputed by the
D DOA that the petitioners whose writ petitions had been allowed by the
learned Single Judge had applied for the industrial licences from the MCD
and that the same were granted to them with retrospective effect covering
the dates when the applications were made by them for allotment of plots
and that therefore in either view, the contention of DOA based on posses-
sion of municipal licences could not merit consideration. The Division
E Bench then examined Rule 6(v) of the Nazul Rules and was of the opinion •
that it did not postulate any condition that Nazul land could be allotted at
pre-determined rates only to persons having municipal licences in respect
1·
of the industrial undertakings. The Division Bench held as under :

F "According to the above Rule, land could be allotted to in-
dustrialists or owners of units and occupiers of warehouses who
are required to shift from non-conforming areas to conforming
areas under the Master Plan or whose land is acquired or is
proposed to be acquired. It seems to us that the Rule requires
industries operating in non-conforming areas to be shifted to
G conforming areas in accordance with the Master Plan. Under
Master Plan land use of a particular area is specified. The land
cannot be used for a purposes other than the one sanctioned by
the Master Plan. Therefore, any industry operating in a non-con-
forming area would be required to be shifted to a conforming area.
H In any event, as already pointed out, the writ petitioners whose
•
D.D.A v. AMBITIOUSENIBRPRISES(D.P. WADHWA,J.] 57

writ petitions have been accepted by the learned Single Judge were A
granted municipal licences from retrospective dates,, covering the
dates on which applications were made for allotment of land."

The question that arises for consideration is if the DDA was justified
in superimposing a condition for an applicant to hold valid municipal B
licence and if Rule 6{v) of the Nazul Rules required allotment of land only
to an applicant holding a valid municipal licence or whose industry was in
non-conforming area.

It was submit\ed before the learned Single Judge by the DDA that
there were large number of applicants and fewer plots and therefore C
putting a condition that only those applicants who were holding municipal
licences could be allotted plots was a valid condition. ,This is how the
learned, Single Judge dealt with this argument :

"DDA is a public authority. It is bound by the standards held D
out it as governing the case of several applicants. When the plots
are allotted for a particular purpose in pursuance of a scheme
formulated by the public authority, the pub)ic authority is expected
, to consider the case of the applicant with reference to the said
scheme and the object to be projected by implementing the
scheme. Only because there are a large number of applicants, the E
public authority cannot ignore the terms of the scheme. If there
are more number of applicants than the number of plots available,
the DDA could have resorted to the drawing of lots amongst all
the eligible applicants or could have probably proceeded to hold
auctions. By imposing the requirement of the municipal licence on p
an applicant, an artificial distinction is sought to be made amongst
the industries who were operating in non-conforming areas."

To us it appears that the condition imposed by the DDA for, allotment of
industrial plot to a person who was having a valid licence under the MCD
Act was neither arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational. A person who is G
running a trade without a valid licence under Section 416 of the MCD Act
is committing an offence which is a continuing offence and he cannot be
put at the same pedestal with a person who is law abiding and is having a
valid licence. Otherwise it will be putting a premium on illegality. That
condition of holding of valid MCD licence imposed by DDA would be legal H
•
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A even if the number of plots available is more than the applicants. It is not
material if the notice inviting applications was silent on this aspect of the
matter and the application form which was prescribed used the words "if
any" as mentioned above. It was submitted on behalf of the ODA that due
to the pressure of the industries which had been running in the non-con-
B forming areas temporary scheme for their continuance until their eviction
was announced in 1982 by the MCD and thereunder ad hoc licences were
granted to such industries subject to their giving an undertaking for closing
the industry and not to claim any damages for such closure and also not
to claim any alternative site in conforming zone. This Court also noted the
argument of the respondents that when the Committee was constituted to
C identify out of 115 applicants and 60 of them were found to be eligible and
55 ineligible, some units out of those 60 found to be eligible were in the
same position ~s those who had obtained temporary licences under the ad
hoc scheme in 1982 and they also did not have the necessary licences under
the MCD Act as required under Section 416 prior to the date of making
D the application for allotment and that their cases were similar to that of
-
the respondents. The Court directed the DOA to verify those facts. There-
after if was submitted by the counsel for the DDA that he himself examined
cases of 7 parties out of 11 in respect of whom these appeals were pending
and that he did not find any criteria as such prescribed for allotment to
E those 60 persons or denial thereof to the 11 persons subject matter of these
appeals. Each case had been considered in its own back drop. The Court
recorded the statement of Mr. Aurn Jaitley, learned counsel for the DDA
as under :

"A persual of the recommendations of the Committees indicat-
F ing that there was no single definitive criterion adopted by the
committees. The case of each unit appears to have been dealt with
on its own merit".

In this view of the matter, the Court observed that the appropriate course
G would be to direct the Commissioner (Land Disposal) of DOA to con-
stitute a committee consisting of three high ranking officers to go into the
merits in t;ach of the claims of the respondents and to find out what criteria
would be adoptable in those cases and whether the respondents would be
entitled to the allotment on the basis thereof. Report of the committee was
H submitted to this Court and objections thereto by the respondents filed
D.D.A v. AMBITIOUS ENTERPRISES [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 59

before the committee which were again examined and the committee. after A
; • considering those objections again submitted its report. Nevertheless the
· Court after examining the reports was of the view that the averments made
by the respondents in support of their matters had not been adequately
dealt with by the Committee. The Court directed an affidavit to be filed by
the DOA as to how the objections had been dealt with and found to be B
unsustainable. The Court also directed filing of the policy of the allotment.
In pursuant thereto an affidavit of Ms. Asma Manzar, Director (Lands),
Delhi Development Authority was filed.

Ms. Asma Manzar, Director (Lands) DOA was also a member of the
committee which had submitted its report earlier and examined the C
objections of the respondents subsequently also which had been filed with
reference to the report. In the present affidavit Ms. Asma Manzar has filed
a precis regarding the policy of allotment of industrial plots to the
applicants who had deposited earnest money in response to the press
advertisement issued in 1976. It was decided by the DOA that all those D
applicants who had deposited on time 30% of the premium be allotted, if
eligible otherwise, industrial plots. The eligible conditions as we find from
the record were (1) the prospective allottee should have a valid municipal
licence under Section 116 of the MCD Act on the date of the application
for allotment of plot and (2) the industry should be existing in a E
non-conforming area. On these basis the applicatiops were scrutinised on
representation being made. Cases of 115 parties out of 299 which had
earlier been rejected were ordered to be re-examined by the
Vice-Chairman, DOA A committee was thus constituted to look into each
and every case so as to determine its eligibility. The Deputy Director
F
(Industry), Deputy Director (City Planning) and one representative of the
Prosecution Branch of the ODA were nominated on the committee. It is
stated that this committee had inspected all the 115 units after formulating
· a proforma and examined the Jocuments of the units which had bearing
on their eligibility. The committee in its report rejected the claim of 55
units. The recommendations of the cpmmittee as these were based on spot G
inspection, assessment of physical performance, consideration of removal
of hazard and nuisance etc., it would appear, were accepted by the ODA

A committee which had been constituted after directions of this
Court again examined the records of those units whose cases had been H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A accepted as it was suggested by some of the respondents that their cases
also fell in the same category. The committee, however, did not find these
facts to be correct.

It is not disputed that the parties who were not having municipal
B licences on the date of their respective applications have been barred from
getting an industrial plot altogether. They are, however, left to fend for
themselves either by buying an industrial plot in public auction or by a
private purchase. As per the policy the ODA does not want to allot the
industrial plots to them on pre-determined rates as they fell outside the
policy made by it. In terms of this policy it is also not material as to from
C what time in fact an industrial unit had been working and may be much
prior to the date of application for allotment of industrial plot. An argu-
ment was also advanced that the Nazul Rules came into force only on
September 26, 1981 but the public advertisement for allotment of plots had
been issued ·much earlier and, therefore, the Nazul Rules would not be
D applicable. This argument does not appear to be sound. No plots had been
allotted prior to the coming into force of the Nazul Rules and once these
Rules which are statutory, came into force no allotment could have been
made outside and in contravention of those Rules. If we see the relevant
part of Rule 6(v) it will apply to those industrialists who are required to
shift their industries from non-conforming areas to conforming areas under
E the Master Plan. It is correct that some of the respondents were granted
municipal licences under ad hoc licensing policy, 1982 from a retrospective
date and it would appear, licence fee has also been charged from the back
date. DDA has not accepted these ad hoc licences as per condition of its
policy there should be a valid municipal licence on the date of the applica-
F tion. It has been pointed out that those parties who wanted ad hoc licenses
had to give an indemnity bond. This ad hoc licensing policy was issued by
the MCD on consideration by the Delhi Administration that "at length the
problem of industrial units functioning ..,in non-conforming areas un-
authorisedly without any licence and had suggested that the units set up
before August 15, 1982 which are not obnoxious and hazardous should be
G granted licence in terms and conditions finalised and conveyed in this
behalf". In the indemnity bond there had to be a specific averment that the
person was running factory "without a proper licence from the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi" as required under Sections 416/417 of the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Another stipulation was "that the person
H will not claim any alternative site in any conforming area in lieu of the
D.DA v. AMBITIOUS ENTERPRISES (D.P. WADHWA, J.] 61

temporary licence granted to me/us for the aforesaid/factory run by me/us A
in the non confirming area, details whereof have been mentioned
hereinabove." Yet a further stipulation in the indemnity bond was that "I/we
will not claim damages or compensation or any alternative site in a con-
forming area in case I/we am/are asked or required to close or shift the
trade/industry from the non-conforming area in respect whereof the tern- B
porary licence as aforesaid has been granted to me/us by the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi."

The respondents relied on these ad hoc licences to claim that they
were running trade/factory from 1976 but were not accepted by the DDA
and their applications were rejected by the committee even after they filed C
objections to the report of the committee during the pendency of these
appeals. We have also examined the reports of the committee; objections
of the respondents; policy and other records of these appeals, and we find
that except for the cases of M/s. Vijay Steel Products and Anr. SLP(C) No.
9028/95, Kimat Baldev Chhiber & Anr. SLP(C) No. 9123/95 and M/s. D
Chawla Sons (Regd.) & Anr. SLP (C) No. 9098/95 other cases do not merit
consideration thus holding that the respondents therein are not entitled to
alternative plots.

In the case of Vijay Steel Products there is a notice dated August 21, E
1980 from the DDA requiring Vijay Steel Products to stop its industrial
unit as it was running the same in non-conforming area in contravention
of Zonal Development Plan of Zone No. H-4 under Section 14 of the Delhi
\ Development Act, 1957. Vijay Steel Products was even prosecuted for an
'
offence under Section 29 of that Act for contravention of Zonal Plan. The F
learned Magistrate, however, acquitted the party by an order dated
February 21, 1985 on the ground that the party had deposited earnest
money as well as 30% of the premium for allotment of alternative plots of
land in 1976 and all this period the DDA had not made any allotment. It
was, therefore, wrong on the part of the DDA to reject the application of
Vijay Steel Products on the ground that it was not located in a G
non-confirming area being situated in 'Lal Dora'. DDA cannot have two
diiferent stands one for rejecting the application of Vijay Steel Products
for allotment of industrial plot on the ground that it was not. located in a
non-conforming area and also posecuting it on the ground that it was
running its industry in non-conforming area. The appeal against Vijay Steel H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

· A Products has to be dismissed.

In the case of Kimat Baldev Chhiber we find that he was granted L-4
licence in 1968 Central Excise Rules framed under the Central Excise and
Salt Act, 1944 for the "manufacture of goods liable to Central duty of
excise". It is claimed in the affidavit filed by Mr. K.B. Chhiber that he was
B granted municipal licence to run his industry with effect from 18.6.75 which
was in pursuance of application dated 17.10.1975. There is a letter of
February 24, 1977 of the MCD to M/s. Saraswati Cable Corporation
(proprietor, Mr. K.B. Chhiber) requiring it to deposit a sum of Rs 5569 on
or before February 28, 1977 towards the licence fee with a warning that
C legal action would be taken and sanction withdrawn in case any default was
made. This letter would justify the stand of Mr. Chhiber that MCD had
issued a licence under Section 416 of the MCD with effect from June 18,
1975. The appeal of the DOA against M/s. K.B. Chhiber also does not
merit consideration and it has to be dismissed.

D
In the case of M/s. Chawla Sons (Regd.) there are two MCD licen-
ces, one is for the period from April 1, 1976 to 31st March, 1977 of which
validity is upto March 31, 1983 and amounts of Rs. 210 had been deposited
in each year against the receipt numbers mentioned in the licence. This
licence shows that the industry is in a non-conforming area. The other
E licence is for the period from April 1983 to March 1984 onwards and issued
on March 28, 1983. The Committee has rejected the case of this period on
the ground that the unit had obtained MCD licence under ad hoc policy
on the basis of undertaking that it will not claim alternative allotment and
was thus not eligible for allotment. It appears to us that first licence had
p not been given due consideration by the committee. The appeal of DDA
against this party has also to be dismissed.

Considering the whole aspect of the matter the appeals of the Delhi
Development Authority in the case of M/s. Vijay. Steel Products SLP(C)
No. 9028/95, Kimat Baldev Chhiber SLP(C) No. 9123/95 and M/s. Chawla
G Sons (Regd.) 9098/95 are dismissed and affirming the orders of the High
Court and in the cases of M/s. Ambitious Enterprises SLP(C) 8351/91,
M/s. Chopra Dying Industries SLP(C) No. 10819/95, M/s. Basant Parkash
Electric & Co. SLP(C) No. 9031/95, Raj Brothers SLP(C) No. 9567/95,
R.K. Chanderbhan Multani SLP(C) No. 18870/95, Joytosma Export
H SLP(C) 9370/95, M/s. Dolly Toys International SLP(C) No. 9369/95 and
D.D.A v. AMBITIOUSEN1ERPRISES [D.P. WADHWA,J.J 63

Satish Chander SL~(C) No. 10058/95 the appeals are allowed, the orders A
·• 'of the High Court are set aside and the writ petitions filed by the respon-
dents are dismissed. No costs.

R.K.S. C.A. No. 4321/97
CA. No. 4322/97
C.A. No. 4323/97 B
C.A. No. 4324/97
C.A. No. 4327/97
C.A. No. 4329/97
I C.A. No. 4330/97 and
''
C.A. No. 4331/97 allowed, C
C.A. No. 4325/97
C.A. No. 4326/97 and
C.A. No. 4328/97 dismissed.

\